It's been said here, both by Michael Reichmann in some articles and by some knowledgable Lu-La members that Red Camera can change the all panorama.I have read the articles and if I understand many points, I'm still not capable to understand the deep reasons of such statement.Not everyday you read that a brand is able to drop a bomb and change the game in the industry.

A wired point,When I was living in Paris, I use to end some nights in a place called "Les Bains Douches" (we called it "les bains").At that time, this place gained a real fame because they understood a simple law: More something is unaccessible,more it creates a legend. Well, I have a similar sensation with Red. Their communication is just wired.(wired is unperfectly expressed but can't find another word)I've been trying to collect information, and there is, but at the same time RED plays the ghost. It's not like what we are used to.

These guys are different, the design is different, everything seems different, included their communication.

I can't really measure the real impact this company will/can make on photographers, the industry itself and the business. I just don't get the point.

We know that video is currently part of the photographer's task, and in that sense, people who have ignored video have less assignments,while photographers who have embraced video get more work. That tendency, with no temptation to generalise, is indeed anchored.

In that sense, if I think of a tool that had an enormous impact, without being revolutionary, is the Canon 5D II.First real camera from the convergence age and the crisis time also (and that is important IMO).

If I understand why RED is capable to in the video production, I do not understand it's real capabilities for stills. That is where all my point is.

Why some of the most serious professionals are saying that RED is so important? Is it true, or is it like "les Bain Douches", a legend based of non accessibility. (thinking that we also face an economic crisis where the cost is decisive for most).

What kind of real impact RED can have on the photography industry, business and professionals studios that can afford them?

RED (Scarlet) remains an enigma, especially when it comes to stills capability.

As a video camera it offers raw video capability, and as such is capable of things that few other cameras can match at any where near the price. The Epic is about to supersede the RED 1 and looks to be terrific.

As far are stills capability goes, and an impact on the stills / video crossover market, it's the Scarlet that everyone is waiting for, and it's late, very late. The video DSLR hardly existed when Scarlet was announced and now we're seeing many low and even large budget productions being done with them. Panasonic and Sony have both announced "real" video cameras for availability this fall that will take their still lenses (NEX and 4/3) and this will accelerate the crossover. (Video pros will use PL mount Zeiss primes and could care less).

I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

I'd suggest that the raw capability of RED is one of the key issues. The other one is obviously general usefullness. Still cameras are not really intended for video/film.

There was a fascinating test of DSLR video on http://www.zacuto.com. The third installment even touches on "raw" capabilty, and the tester seem to say that there is at least a 2.5 stop advantage to "raw" regarding DR. I'd recommend the checking out the "Zacuto shootout at twenty ten", mostly because it gives a lot of insight in real video production with real experts in that area. It's certainly has a good entertainment value, like LuLa's famous Reichmann & Schewe shows. It is always very nice to see people discuss thinks they do know a lot about.

A side note, back in 2008 I spent a week in Tiveden (a small national park in Sweden) with a good friend. Weather was awful, but we were shooting in the morning and had some wine and the Reichmann & Schewe show on Lightroom 2 in the afternoon. had a great time. This year we go to "Gotland" in August and pray for better weather and a Lightroom 3 tutorial from Reichmann & Schewe. The wines we fix our selves.

Best regardsErik

Quote from: michael

RED (Scarlet) remains an enigma, especially when it comes to stills capability.

As a video camera it offers raw video capability, and as such is capable of things that few other cameras can match at any where near the price. The Epic is about to supersede the RED 1 and looks to be terrific.

As far are stills capability goes, and an impact on the stills / video crossover market, it's the Scarlet that everyone is waiting for, and it's late, very late. The video DSLR hardly existed when Scarlet was announced and now we're seeing many low and even large budget productions being done with them. Panasonic and Sony have both announced "real" video cameras for availability this fall that will take their still lenses (NEX and 4/3) and this will accelerate the crossover. (Video pros will use PL mount Zeiss primes and could care less).

I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.

Lot of things are due to happen in two years. Obviously a lot of good things can be done with a Canon 5DII but it may not be ideal camera. I really would suggest checking out the http://www.zacuto.com site for their tests.

Best regardsErik

Quote from: pcunite

About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.

About two years from now I plan to be involved in video production, not necessarily the guy behind the camera but a director for short video editorials. Thus my perspective and needs are different that what a Hollywood movie crew would want and need.

* I will have a small crew, just me with one or perhaps two people on location to assist.

* We will be working in real locations, not entire houses built from scratch, thus we need (I assume) a larg'ish sensor to avoid having to backup (distance from subject) to much.

* To get the DOF we want we will at times be stopping down so ISO goes up we need good clean images.

* We anticipate using LED lighting, small yet powerful to help with making cleaner more interesting video. Small so our tiny crew can get in and out of locations not setup for this sort of thing.

* On location filming length two/four hours.

* Final output for the video: 720p/1080p.

* Final length for video: less than 30 minutes.

* Frequency of video productions, one a week.

I have no idea what we need just yet, but a Canon 5DII seems the route to take. Lack of RAW is a concern if we don't get the colors right the day of. I don't know... we'll see.

If you are serious about moving to motion then go to this link and listen to #56 featuring Shane Haliburt

Caution, it's very long, so make sure you have something else to do when it's playing in the background or you'll go to sleep.

Anyway, Mr. Haliburt is a real DP, working on real large budget films and he's enamored by the Canons, though more than most understands their limitations, especially in moire and artifacts.

What he likes most is the form factor and the ability to work fast, especially in today's budget /time challanged world.

I'm shooting 5d's in vertical and horizontal mode with a Red Rock rig and they have some goofiness, especially in follow focus, but for the price there is nothing in this world that comes within 1000 miles in the cinema world, though I doubt seriously if anyone would shoot a full length high budget feature using a 5D2 as the primary camera, or only camera.

If your going to work small crew, I'd give some of that a rethink, because the best way to make motion a faster process is to shoot multiple cameras and then there is the issue of sound. The 5d2's ability to record sound is just about adequate for a scratch track for syncing. If your shooting dialog you almost have to have a secondary source for sound recording and an expert technician.

Now I'm not an expert on RED, though would buy the Epic or even a RED with the MX sensor today if it was available, though it seems all of Red's energy is going towards the Epic and the smaller Scarlet. At least today because RED seems to have the same business model as the medium format still world in that a lot of what is talked about is in the future and not on the shelf.

Anyway, this link is a good place to start for information on shooting the Canons and just a word to the wise, make sure that your viewing monitor is calibrated and the look you are shooting in camera is 90% of what you want to see on output, since it's not a raw file and the video is 8 bits there is not a lot of moving the file around in post without spending a lot of resource.

BC

P.S. 30 minutes of interesting motion imagery, is a huge undertaking, at least if you don't want the viewer to fall asleep. Mr. Haliburt's 5d2 demo called 3 minutes is just 3 minutes and you can see how consuming and costly 3 minutes of motion can be even on a budget.

I'm sure that RED (the company) has good reasons for being some two years late with the Scarlet, but as the saying goes – time and tide wait for no man – and neither does the electronics industry. Scarlet will still have its raw capability as an edge (but for how much longer), but its stills ability remains a big fat enigma, because RED has thus far been conspicuously silent on the matter.

So, while RED is in fact revolutionizing the video / film industry, Scarlet's ability to impact the stills / crossover market remains a complete unknown. It may still be a game changer, but it also might just be too little too late.

Michael

Though nobody has told me directly, I think the thing with RED is they are trying to cover a lot of territory at once. First cinema with a full fledged cinema camera that will replace film, which in that world means a camera and file with no issues, no drama, no lack of reliability because in the cinema world a day's worth of redo is a gazillion dollars and opens up a whole lot of fun for the over the line producer trying to hold talent for an extended period.

Then Red is trying to find their place in the dsmc world of stills and video convergence, which I don't know if I understand given that direction of stills and motion is usually much different. I would think a dedicated still camera that can go to high iso and a dedicated motion camera would be a better function, but time will tell.

Third Red is trying to find a place in the consumer world which I think the Scarlet get's close to. That must be a huge undertaking given Canon, Panasonic, Sony, JVC are all sitting in that room with knives pulled.

Once again, time will tell and your right time will not wait because as Red builds new buildings and 4k screens people are buying Red Rocks, Zagutos to put on their 5/7d's and shooting by the minute.

Lot of things are due to happen in two years. Obviously a lot of good things can be done with a Canon 5DII but it may not be ideal camera. I really would suggest checking out the http://www.zacuto.com site for their tests.

Best regardsErik

The problem with the Zacuto tests is that they tested 4K film, 2K film, 5DII, 7D etc etc ad nauseam. And the elephant in the room, RED, they simply ignored.

The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

Michael

I agree 100% with you that serious film makers, independant cineasts etc...will have much more interest on going to the new "Pana & Co" specialized cameras.I think that the DSLR's video will keep being successfull for the still photographer on budget that needs videos from time to time. So all his lenses and bodies are the same system,or the photo reporter or photo journalist on the field. IMO, both proposals will co-exist pacifically.

I also think that the designers could have done more efforts to reach the convergence and design a proper combocam.It is not easy, but hey, isn't that for what they are paid for?

Ps: while I writte these lines, I hear the horns and the people warming for the football final...really noisy under my studio's window.I don't imagine after the game if Spain wins...

I've never subscribed to the one-size fits all theory. A still camera capable of achieving great results in single capture isn't going to be capable of capturing the same level of video capture just as the same top notch video camera not being capable of still photography. They might be close however in the end nothing will beat a high-end video camera for video and an equally high-end still for photography.

I agree with Michael's conclusions about the ergonomics of stills vs. video cameras.

We shoot both, using a Hasselblad H3D-ii or 5D2 for stills. We used to use twin HVX200's for video but have recently moved to using a 5D2 and a 7D.

The ergonomics of shooting video with Canons is APPALLING. Really, really, awful. There are so many features from the HVX200's we miss, but the main ones are peaking, zebra and audio bars. We've more than once had to retake a scene because the crappy jack plug from our wireless mike receiver wasn't properly plugged into the camera's audio in... that just plain never happened with XLR connectors, and even if it had done, you'd instantly have seen from the audio bars that all was not well.

The process of waiting to shoot a single still image or setting up to shoot a moving image shot are quite different, and the ergonomics of the cameras end up being very different as a result. In stills one primarily changes things in between shots, so things end up being more quanitized, whereas when the film is rolling you might want to produce a very smooth and predictably and reproducible follow focus action- hence one of the biggest aftermarket $$$ everyone adds to a dSLR, a follow-focus rig and some sort of chest mount.

We recently had a very lightweight trip above the arctic circle and to get in under packing limits we had to take two stills tripods instead of video tripods, and tried to shoot moving footage from them. My god. Never again. You take the action of a proper panning fluid head on a ball mount with different drag settings and nice slide-y action for camera balance totally for granted until it is taken away from you in favour of what suddenly seems to be an antagonistic eight-legged multi-knobbed octopus who is intent on spoiling every pan shot you attempt.

So with all of the misery, why on earth are we using the Canons for video at all?

It is just down to the on-screen glamour of the end result. The simple fact of the matter is that the girls we are photographing look significantly more movie-star gorgeous when shot with the Canons than when shot with the Panasonics. We moan and bitch and curse and repeatedly have to reshoot entire sequences sometimes, just to get the magic glow in the can at the end of the day. The only alternatives are currently WAAAY out of our budgetary reach, or, like shooting actual 35 mm, even less practical for our 100% digital workflow.

I guess there is an advantage when travelling to taking the combo cams, for the overall lowered weight given that our backup stills kit doubles as our video kit.

But we'll sure as mustard be dropping the 5D2/7D from our video shooting line up as soon as someone releases a video camera with a comparable sensor and comparable in-camera image processing magic to give us the same shallow depth of field and gorgeous skin tone rendition, and we'll be trying out the new 4/3 Panasonic as soon as we can get our hands on it because the ergonomics of the HVX200's is very good. The Sony, too, if they can get over their strange fetish for interlacing. One just hopes that Canon have a 7D/5D2 size sensor packaged up in a proper video body (and with internal processing instead of line skipping to get rid of the artefacts, moire and jello-cam too) somewhere in the works.

I agree with Michael's conclusions about the ergonomics of stills vs. video cameras.

We shoot both, using a Hasselblad H3D-ii or 5D2 for stills. We used to use twin HVX200's for video but have recently moved to using a 5D2 and a 7D.

The ergonomics of shooting video with Canons is APPALLING. Really, really, awful. There are so many features from the HVX200's we miss, but the main ones are peaking, zebra and audio bars. We've more than once had to retake a scene because the crappy jack plug from our wireless mike receiver wasn't properly plugged into the camera's audio in... that just plain never happened with XLR connectors, and even if it had done, you'd instantly have seen from the audio bars that all was not well.

The process of waiting to shoot a single still image or setting up to shoot a moving image shot are quite different, and the ergonomics of the cameras end up being very different as a result. In stills one primarily changes things in between shots, so things end up being more quanitized, whereas when the film is rolling you might want to produce a very smooth and predictably and reproducible follow focus action- hence one of the biggest aftermarket $$$ everyone adds to a dSLR, a follow-focus rig and some sort of chest mount.

We recently had a very lightweight trip above the arctic circle and to get in under packing limits we had to take two stills tripods instead of video tripods, and tried to shoot moving footage from them. My god. Never again. You take the action of a proper panning fluid head on a ball mount with different drag settings and nice slide-y action for camera balance totally for granted until it is taken away from you in favour of what suddenly seems to be an antagonistic eight-legged multi-knobbed octopus who is intent on spoiling every pan shot you attempt.

So with all of the misery, why on earth are we using the Canons for video at all?

It is just down to the on-screen glamour of the end result. The simple fact of the matter is that the girls we are photographing look significantly more movie-star gorgeous when shot with the Canons than when shot with the Panasonics. We moan and bitch and curse and repeatedly have to reshoot entire sequences sometimes, just to get the magic glow in the can at the end of the day. The only alternatives are currently WAAAY out of our budgetary reach, or, like shooting actual 35 mm, even less practical for our 100% digital workflow.

I guess there is an advantage when travelling to taking the combo cams, for the overall lowered weight given that our backup stills kit doubles as our video kit.

But we'll sure as mustard be dropping the 5D2/7D from our video shooting line up as soon as someone releases a video camera with a comparable sensor and comparable in-camera image processing magic to give us the same shallow depth of field and gorgeous skin tone rendition, and we'll be trying out the new 4/3 Panasonic as soon as we can get our hands on it because the ergonomics of the HVX200's is very good. The Sony, too, if they can get over their strange fetish for interlacing. One just hopes that Canon have a 7D/5D2 size sensor packaged up in a proper video body (and with internal processing instead of line skipping to get rid of the artefacts, moire and jello-cam too) somewhere in the works.

One does wonder what the Canon firmware guys are playing at with their half-assed implementation of audio bars- I'm guessing none o the engineering team actually shoots moving pictures and sound for a living... !

The more I think about it and the more I use video DSLRs alongside real video cameras, the more I find that video DSLRs make for really bad video cameras, and that video cameras that can shoot stills are equally poorly conceived. I know that's an 180 degree turn-around from what I was thinking and writing last year, but hey – technology changes, the marketplace changes and perceptions change.

Shooting stills and shooting video are such divergent activities, that the idea of having one device to do both is flawed. Also, with the exception of providing shallow DOF, I don't find VDSLRs to be at all usable for video without thousand of $ in bulky ancillary equipment.

And by the end of this year, when both Panasonic and Sony have their large sensor video hybrids available, cameras like the 5DMKII, 7D and GH1 will become of much less interest to serious film makers.

Michael

Michael,

It is interesting that you and the Zacuto audience have such different opinions.

This might be due to the fact that they do set-pieces with highly controlled lighting and their subjects are heavily made-up, and multiple takes (the equivalent of still fashion and beauty photography), while you shoot field documentaries in available light and you want to get it right first time.

Thus to be respectful of both their competence and yours, I would assume that the market will segment, and we will have products close to actual video cameras, with long zooms and good stabilisation, that will write compressed and quickly usable formats that can be processed on small computers and will be used mostly in documentaries, and others which will basically be shooting RAW with low compression and fixed lenses that will be used on soundstages and location when a big postprod budget is available.

Except a miracle, I would expect SLRs to fill the "heavy" feature film and TV serial niche in the near future, as Japanese companies have a habit of not fixing what's not broken, and the Zacuto crowd really do those jobs so they know what they are talking about. I do foresee some new features and accessories being marketed for those SLRs eg. remote focus /viewfinder/trigger modules. On the other hand, it's clear that the pro video camera market segment is going to get upgraded as you state.

The various little problems with follow focus and sound, though very annoying, could be fixed even now. Focus in particular could be done via an electronic remote.

As far as i see from specs, Raw has been removed from both still and video mode to avoid competing with pro video and slr ...

"Removed" is a strange word since Sony has never had RAW video out with this sensor, which is still primarily a still imaging sensor modified so as to also produce video output, not one designed from scratch for professional quality video output. The more likely explanation for having consumer oriented rather than professional features, is the need to give priority to the cost/feature desires of the largest group of potential customers: people who want to make videos to be shown at home after at most some basic editing. Adding pro level features like RAW output that most potential consumers have no interest in would pointlessly increase cost and so hurt sales and profitability. "One 'pro' sale gained is not worth dozens of consumer sales lost", the bean counters in the Sony consumer products division would say.

I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.

"Removed" is a strange word since Sony has never had RAW video out with this sensor, which is still primarily a still imaging sensor modified so as to also produce video output, not one designed from scratch for professional quality video output. The more likely explanation for having consumer oriented rather than professional features, is the need to give priority to the cost/feature desires of the largest group of potential customers: people who want to make videos to be shown at home after at most some basic editing. Adding pro level features like RAW output that most potential consumers have no interest in would pointlessly increase cost and so hurt sales and profitability. "One 'pro' sale gained is not worth dozens of consumer sales lost", the bean counters in the Sony consumer products division would say.

I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.

This comes after the pro miniDV fiasco etc. i stand by my interpretation of the actions of a repeat offender in the area of salami slicing and market segmentatiom.